Coronavirus

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Smirking_Saint said:

There has always been a percentage of 'healthy' individuals that have unfortunately required treatment, as well as those that are unable to receive a vaccine that could come into contact with non symptomatic

 

I agree, there are 'outliers' with every disease that end up in hospital with no real explanation as to why, however, the numbers of these tends to be very small.  Similarly, I expect the number who are unable to receive the vaccine is also very small and very unlikely to 'overwhelm' the NHS even if they all contracted the virus on the same day.  Not only that but I would expect that anyone who is unable to have the vaccine would take additional personal measures to protect themselves.

I don't see enough people in those two groups to overwhelm the NHS.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

Finally Hancock talks about hospitalisation and vaccine numbers

126 admitted to hospital 

Of those 86 unvaccinated, 28 one dose, 3 both doses. Don’t know what happened to status of the other 9.  Seems higher than previous efficacy figures but at least they are telling us.

 

 

 

Seems about right to be fair.  Efficacy of first dose is estimated to be between 50-85% but even then this will only happen gradually up until around week 4, so plenty of opportunities for the 28 with one dose to end up in hospital (and let's not forget this is just people in hospital who have tested positive who could have a completely unrelated medical issue).

Then we have 3 who have had both doses - again they could have completely unrelated medical issues.  Given there is another four week period for the vaccine to get to work they could be moving from 50-85% efficacy to around 99% efficacy over that period so still opportunities for them to catch the virus.

Then there is the inevitable margin of error (false positives / negatives), which could also account for the other 9 for instance!

[Smirking_Saint]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I agree, there are 'outliers' with every disease that end up in hospital with no real explanation as to why, however, the numbers of these tends to be very small.  Similarly, I expect the number who are unable to receive the vaccine is also very small and very unlikely to 'overwhelm' the NHS even if they all contracted the virus on the same day.  Not only that but I would expect that anyone who is unable to have the vaccine would take additional personal measures to protect themselves.

I don't see enough people in those two groups to overwhelm the NHS.

Either way, not worth taking a risk when we are this close to the deadline set really, especially as this is when we should hit the targets required to provide adequate protection to the majority

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

Either way, not worth taking a risk when we are this close to the deadline set really, especially as this is when we should hit the targets required to provide adequate protection to the majority

Surely it will be the same risk even once we've hit the targets required to provide adequate protection to the majority, the two groups you mentioned aren't likely to be significantly impacted until around 95% of the population has had two vaccines?

In which case shouldn't we extend the lockdown until that time?

[CB Fry]

5 hours ago, CollinsDic said:

Aww diddums. I await admin to tell me off for my comment there, even after being called a prick. LOL.

Are you going to tell us what you understand the plan to be?

[CB Fry]

5 hours ago, CollinsDic said:

Actually, WRONG. I have stated clearly a couple of time that I will not bother wasting my time to explain it to you as you are too far gone. You are all so hooked on the narrative that it will fall on deaf ears. Only when its too late will you say BUGGER, wish we had listened. Ask yourself one simple question; if the human race keeps growing in numbers over the next 100 years, as it has in the last 100 years, will our planet live or die....is it sustainable. If you answer YES, we will be fine as sustainable energy is just around the corner, congrats, you are brainwashed as well as they could have ever hoped for. You are a true believer. Blessings of the state.

So when whatever it is that is going to happen, happens we will all say BUGGER I wish I'd listened to the person that refused to say what thing that is going to happen is going to be.

Clear.

Diddums.

[benjii]

58 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

So when whatever it is that is going to happen, happens we will all say BUGGER I wish I'd listened to the person that refused to say what thing that is going to happen is going to be.

Clear.

Diddums.

It's obvious, and unbelievably significant, but not worth the hassle of a forum post.

Just use your loaf!

[The Cat]

6 hours ago, CollinsDic said:

Actually, WRONG. I have stated clearly a couple of time that I will not bother wasting my time to explain it to you as you are too far gone. You are all so hooked on the narrative that it will fall on deaf ears. Only when its too late will you say BUGGER, wish we had listened. Ask yourself one simple question; if the human race keeps growing in numbers over the next 100 years, as it has in the last 100 years, will our planet live or die....is it sustainable. If you answer YES, we will be fine as sustainable energy is just around the corner, congrats, you are brainwashed as well as they could have ever hoped for. You are a true believer. Blessings of the state.

Have you watched Utopia? If not you should it's probably right up your street. Make sure it's the original C4 series though, not the remake.

[Whitey Grandad]

On 05/06/2021 at 23:28, egg said:

Whitey, your posts are littered with moans and complaints. If it's not covid and not being able to go here or there, it's your seat at the stadium. You're entitled to an opinion, but I don't sense any gratitude for what you can do, just the focus on what you can't. 

In saying that I'm getting on with my life it's not "I'm all right Jack", but more of a "we're (most of us) all right Jack". The reality is that most people are getting on with normal lives, and I make no apology for being one of them. If you are offended by a positive outlook in a difficult world, I can't help you with that. 

I'm quite content that I'll continue to enjoy what I can, even if it's not what I would have done in normal times. There's nothing "nasty" or "selfish" about that.

Sure, many people aren't all right, I get that and live in the real world, but that shouldn't stop the vast majority for whom things are OK getting the most out of life and not focusing on the bits that are currently missing. 

You really are under the thumb, aren’t you. If you’re happy to roll over and have your tummy tickled that’s up to you. You obviously don’t value your freedoms so you won’t mind when they are taken away for good.

You haven’t got a clue as to the difficulties that some outfits are facing. £50,000 in debt with repayments starting this month, furlough payment coming to an end soon, redundancies starting from now on, but no, you’re all right so that’s all that matters.

My mother is way over 101 and lives that many miles away with my sisters. Do you think I will be allowed to go and see her before she dies? If she does die I will be allowed to go and see her then but not before.

As for my Season Ticket, it’s my money and my loyalty and I’ve got every right to complain.

You really are a soft touch.

[egg]

11 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You really are under the thumb, aren’t you. If you’re happy to roll over and have your tummy tickled that’s up to you. You obviously don’t value your freedoms so you won’t mind when they are taken away for good.

You haven’t got a clue as to the difficulties that some outfits are facing. £50,000 in debt with repayments starting this month, furlough payment coming to an end soon, redundancies starting from now on, but no, you’re all right so that’s all that matters.

My mother is way over 101 and lives that many miles away with my sisters. Do you think I will be allowed to go and see her before she dies? If she does die I will be allowed to go and see her then but not before.

As for my Season Ticket, it’s my money and my loyalty and I’ve got every right to complain.

You really are a soft touch.

Blimey, this was days ago Whitey. I'm not a "soft touch" or "under the thumb".

I have a simple choice.

1. Whinge and whine about what I can't do, or

2. Accept that I can't do shit about government policy and enjoy what I can do.

It's 2 all day long for me. It's a very peaceful way to live, and I genuinely wouldn't want to be living with frustrations and angst about stuff I can't control. I appreciate there's frustration and pain, we've all been hit by Covid in our own way, but I'll continue to take the positives out of life. 

[Smirking_Saint]

4 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Surely it will be the same risk even once we've hit the targets required to provide adequate protection to the majority, the two groups you mentioned aren't likely to be significantly impacted until around 95% of the population has had two vaccines?

In which case shouldn't we extend the lockdown until that time?

I meant minority, not majority apologies, its not really a hardship waiting a further 3 weeks or less

[Weston Super Saint]

13 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

I meant minority, not majority apologies, its not really a hardship waiting a further 3 weeks or less

For you, perhaps.

For the millions of people who are still not able to work, facing redundancy, mounting debts etc, then another 3 weeks is a hardship. 

[Fan The Flames]

9 hours ago, CollinsDic said:

Actually, WRONG. I have stated clearly a couple of time that I will not bother wasting my time to explain it to you as you are too far gone. You are all so hooked on the narrative that it will fall on deaf ears. Only when its too late will you say BUGGER, wish we had listened. Ask yourself one simple question; if the human race keeps growing in numbers over the next 100 years, as it has in the last 100 years, will our planet live or die....is it sustainable. If you answer YES, we will be fine as sustainable energy is just around the corner, congrats, you are brainwashed as well as they could have ever hoped for. You are a true believer. Blessings of the state.

A couple of quick questions. So when this thing happens that going to make us think bugger, why won't the 'believers' be affected by the thing

What is the timeframe of the thing happening.

I reckon if you answer those two questions I will be able to guess what the thing is.

[Smirking_Saint]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

For you, perhaps.

For the millions of people who are still not able to work, facing redundancy, mounting debts etc, then another 3 weeks is a hardship. 

Of course it is... the whole situation has been awful, for a great many people

But we are here now, we actually have a coherent plan that the government hasn’t fucked up yet (despite some strong attemps). As I said before, if we drop the plan now and allow the doors to fly open there is a risk the virus could take hold again.. now.. of course that risk is significant lower than it ever has been, but the point still stands

So if you had the choice, do you wait 3 weeks with a strong likelihood that we have a significant shield, or take the risk of taking huge bounds backwards that would cause even more damage to those frozen out by lockdowns ?

[CB Fry]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

My mother is way over 101 and lives that many miles away with my sisters. Do you think I will be allowed to go and see her before she dies? If she does die I will be allowed to go and see her then but not before.

Where does she live? 

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You really are under the thumb, aren’t you. If you’re happy to roll over and have your tummy tickled that’s up to you. You obviously don’t value your freedoms so you won’t mind when they are taken away for good.

You haven’t got a clue as to the difficulties that some outfits are facing. £50,000 in debt with repayments starting this month, furlough payment coming to an end soon, redundancies starting from now on, but no, you’re all right so that’s all that matters.

My mother is way over 101 and lives that many miles away with my sisters. Do you think I will be allowed to go and see her before she dies? If she does die I will be allowed to go and see her then but not before.

As for my Season Ticket, it’s my money and my loyalty and I’ve got every right to complain.

You really are a soft touch.

I work in the travel industry, so I have more than a clue as to the difficulties being faced by some outfits. I don’t think I need to reiterate my opinion on the matter,

[Weston Super Saint]

10 hours ago, Smirking_Saint said:

Of course it is... the whole situation has been awful, for a great many people

But we are here now, we actually have a coherent plan that the government hasn’t fucked up yet (despite some strong attemps). As I said before, if we drop the plan now and allow the doors to fly open there is a risk the virus could take hold again.. now.. of course that risk is significant lower than it ever has been, but the point still stands

So if you had the choice, do you wait 3 weeks with a strong likelihood that we have a significant shield, or take the risk of taking huge bounds backwards that would cause even more damage to those frozen out by lockdowns ?

Again, you use lots of rhetoric but don't actually quantify anything.

Explain how another 3 weeks wait will avoid decimating the NHS compared to re-opening on the 21st?  

I appreciate that there will still be 'some' vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated for one reason or another, but don't believe the cost of keeping millions of people away from their livelihoods is justifiable to protect such a small percentage of people.  At what point do we hand responsibility back to the individual rather than dictate to the majority to protect the overwhelming minority?  

The whole point of lockdowns was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed.  We could open everything up today and there isn't a scenario where that will happen anymore due to the fact that the biggest risks to the NHS have all been offered a vaccine.

[Smirking_Saint]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Again, you use lots of rhetoric but don't actually quantify anything.

Explain how another 3 weeks wait will avoid decimating the NHS compared to re-opening on the 21st?  

I appreciate that there will still be 'some' vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated for one reason or another, but don't believe the cost of keeping millions of people away from their livelihoods is justifiable to protect such a small percentage of people.  At what point do we hand responsibility back to the individual rather than dictate to the majority to protect the overwhelming minority?  

The whole point of lockdowns was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed.  We could open everything up today and there isn't a scenario where that will happen anymore due to the fact that the biggest risks to the NHS have all been offered a vaccine.

I mean.... I've stated my point over and over again

The biggest age groups that pose the biggest risk to community transmission are likely to be 18-50 (working age, college, university, socialising) and only 50% of those are currently protected via vaccines, even a single shot.

Should we completely take the shields away BEFORE we have hit a critical point of the vaccine program we risk reintroducing the virus back into the community, where, although the risk is small, it can take hold

Like we were during the time between the first and second wave, we are at a point that giving it a little more time would likely decrease the chances of needing to go back into any severe form of lockdowns for the foreseeable and whilst opening up 3 weeks early probably looks appealing to those that are currently suffering I would imagine the long term goal is to ensure they will not have to be hit by any further severe restrictions in the future

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

I mean.... I've stated my point over and over again

The biggest age groups that pose the biggest risk to community transmission are likely to be 18-50 (working age, college, university, socialising) and only 50% of those are currently protected via vaccines, even a single shot.

Should we completely take the shields away BEFORE we have hit a critical point of the vaccine program we risk reintroducing the virus back into the community, where, although the risk is small, it can take hold

Like we were during the time between the first and second wave, we are at a point that giving it a little more time would likely decrease the chances of needing to go back into any severe form of lockdowns for the foreseeable and whilst opening up 3 weeks early probably looks appealing to those that are currently suffering I would imagine the long term goal is to ensure they will not have to be hit by any further severe restrictions in the future

I understand your point entirely, but it doesn't add up!

The current figures show that around 80% of all UK adults have CoVid antibodies - whether through vaccination or previous infection.

I understand that still leaves 20% of all UK adults that don't have the antibodies and are therefore at risk of community transmission.  I fully accept that once all of the measures that are currently in place are lifted, it is inevitable that the number of cases will rise due to the number of people without antibodies, however, given that the virus has more serious effects in older people the chances of hospitalisation for under 50's is somewhere in the region of 2 per 100,000 people which diminishes the younger people are.

My argument has been pretty clear and as yet you haven't answered the very simple question.  Of the remaining people who are not fully immunised and are therefore at risk of community transmission, who, from this group will cause the NHS to be overloaded and thus force another lockdown?  Simple question, but one which you have repeatedly avoided answering, yet continue to trot out the example of having to re-enter a lockdown if we don't wait another three weeks!

I also understand your point that there are a tiny minority of people who are vulnerable but cannot be vaccinated, but once more I am happy to state that I don't think there is enough of them to overwhelm the NHS even if they all caught the virus on the 22nd June!  I've also asked the question, when should individuals like this, who through no fault of their own find themselves in this position, take responsibility for their own health and well being (I suspect the answer to that question is that those with any sense are already doing this and probably have been long before CoVid became an issue as they are likely to be susceptible to a whole host of complaints!).

Comparing our current situation with the time between the first and second waves last year, when no vaccine had even been invented, let alone a comprehensive programme succesfully rolled out, is utter lunacy and does you no favours!

[Smirking_Saint]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I understand your point entirely, but it doesn't add up!

The current figures show that around 80% of all UK adults have CoVid antibodies - whether through vaccination or previous infection.

I understand that still leaves 20% of all UK adults that don't have the antibodies and are therefore at risk of community transmission.  I fully accept that once all of the measures that are currently in place are lifted, it is inevitable that the number of cases will rise due to the number of people without antibodies, however, given that the virus has more serious effects in older people the chances of hospitalisation for under 50's is somewhere in the region of 2 per 100,000 people which diminishes the younger people are.

My argument has been pretty clear and as yet you haven't answered the very simple question.  Of the remaining people who are not fully immunised and are therefore at risk of community transmission, who, from this group will cause the NHS to be overloaded and thus force another lockdown?  Simple question, but one which you have repeatedly avoided answering, yet continue to trot out the example of having to re-enter a lockdown if we don't wait another three weeks!

I also understand your point that there are a tiny minority of people who are vulnerable but cannot be vaccinated, but once more I am happy to state that I don't think there is enough of them to overwhelm the NHS even if they all caught the virus on the 22nd June!  I've also asked the question, when should individuals like this, who through no fault of their own find themselves in this position, take responsibility for their own health and well being (I suspect the answer to that question is that those with any sense are already doing this and probably have been long before CoVid became an issue as they are likely to be susceptible to a whole host of complaints!).

Comparing our current situation with the time between the first and second waves last year, when no vaccine had even been invented, let alone a comprehensive programme succesfully rolled out, is utter lunacy and does you no favours!

I'm not suggesting we are in the same position as last year, we aren't, we are far from it. I'm just pointing out that jumping the gun when we have a timeline to follow has failed before, and the risk is not worth the reward for trying it again.

I don't have the data, I'm only surmising that should we open before the critical mass of the populous is vaccinated then we stand a chance of reintroducing the virus back into the community. That could, through no fault of their own, threaten those that are clinically vulnerable and 'could' (although unlikely to overwhelm) put the NHS back on the back foot.

I imagine they have used the time of low infections in order to catch up with those delayed that required treatments for a range of other conditions, and a rise in infection rates would likely further put this program back at risk.

Again, we are around 3 weeks from hitting the critical mass (apparently), at which point the risk level is significantly lower for all. So it makes perfect sense, from a risk mitigation POV to follow through with it

[Whitey Grandad]

14 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Where does she live? 

Broxbourne, Hertfordshire. My two sisters and their families are also in that area. It's a two hour drive at best. Her hearing is now too bad to use the phone.

Just one example. There are plenty of others in the same situation. 

[Fan The Flames]

On 09/06/2021 at 11:10, Whitey Grandad said:

Broxbourne, Hertfordshire. My two sisters and their families are also in that area. It's a two hour drive at best. Her hearing is now too bad to use the phone.

Just one example. There are plenty of others in the same situation. 

Personally mate, I wouldn't let any set of rules stop me seeing my family.

[Whitey Grandad]

19 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Personally mate, I wouldn't let any set of rules stop me seeing my family.

You might very well think that, I couldn’t possibly comment

[Lighthouse]

Is that not within the rules anyway?

[Weston Super Saint]

38 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Is that not within the rules anyway?

Yes.

Can even stay the night or two.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Yes.

Can even stay the night or two.

In that case I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this statement

On 08/06/2021 at 18:43, Whitey Grandad said:

Do you think I will be allowed to go and see her before she dies?

 

[Whitey Grandad]

10 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

In that case I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this statement

 

It’s eased a bit since 17th May when it used to be limited to just two households. I now have to find a time when I can go and see them but they keep getting ill. Not my mum though, she just sails through it all. So far.

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It’s eased a bit since 17th May when it used to be limited to just two households. I now have to find a time when I can go and see them but they keep getting ill. Not my mum though, she just sails through it all. So far.

Still none the wiser. What was stopping you from visiting your mum, either before of after 17th May?

[Whitey Grandad]

5 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Still none the wiser. What was stopping you from visiting your mum, either before of after 17th May?

The limit on the number of households. 

[egg]

50 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The limit on the number of households. 

So go with less people. You've been complaining that the rules stop you from seeing you from seeing your mum, but the rules allow it. 

[CB Fry]

On 09/06/2021 at 11:10, Whitey Grandad said:

Broxbourne, Hertfordshire. My two sisters and their families are also in that area. It's a two hour drive at best. Her hearing is now too bad to use the phone.

Just one example. There are plenty of others in the same situation. 

All my family are in a city called Southampton, which is a three hour drive away for us - 2 brothers and a sister all with kids of various ages, plus elderly mum. Late May Bank Holiday saw them all, my family of four stayed three nights in an Air BnB. 

Visits, trips out for couple of walks, bit of Lepe Beach, lovely.

No problem at all and not against any rules.

Anyone saying their can't see their mum because of evil government rules is completely full of shit.

 

Edited 11 June, 2021 by CB Fry

[Lord Duckhunter]

I reckon Whitey’s old dear dodged a bullet, he’d only depress her with his whinging and moaning. 

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, egg said:

So go with less people. You've been complaining that the rules stop you from seeing you from seeing your mum, but the rules allow it. 

That wasn’t the problem.

[CB Fry]

If Whitey is saying it is the government that won't let him travel to see his family we can only assume that he is currently in prison.

[Lighthouse]

You are aware that if you have a holiday home in Southern France, you still only count as one household, Whitey? Forgive me for being facetious but I just can’t fathom why you think what you do.

[whelk]

Has Whitey been spinning his old dear a line about why he can’t visit?

[whelk]

40 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

If Whitey is saying it is the government that won't let him travel to see his family we can only assume that he is currently in prison.

Where all referees should be

[Turkish]

41 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

If Whitey is saying it is the government that won't let him travel to see his family we can only assume that he is currently in prison.

Using a burner phone as well to connect to the internet.

#novisitsforyou

[whelk]

So another 4 weeks delay. So obvious the NHS will be overrun without it.  All stats pointing to it being at breaking point. Clearly lots of support for the timid approach as  seen on here. Doesn’t overly impact me apart from probably a cancelled festival. The poor sods in hospitality I feel sorry for.

Edited 12 June, 2021 by whelk

[Turkish]

5 hours ago, whelk said:

So another 4 weeks delay. So obvious the NHS will be overrun without it.  All stats pointing to it being at breaking point. Clearly lots of support for the timid approach as  seen on here. Doesn’t overly impact me apart from probably a cancelled festival. The poor sods in hospitality I feel sorry for.

My son has just been in hospital for a nearly week not far from one of the supposed hotspots. The hospital has one patient in there suffering covid. I was talking to a nurse in the recovery area after his op, she told me that the area he was in then was be used as a Covid ICU this time last year and was packed on Sunday after his op he was the only one in the ward. The children’s ward he was on for 4. days after the op was busy, they were having to operate at 70% of capacity due to Covid restrictions. 

[whelk]

24 minutes ago, Turkish said:

My son has just been in hospital for a nearly week not far from one of the supposed hotspots. The hospital has one patient in there suffering covid. I was talking to a nurse in the recovery area after his op, she told me that the area he was in then was be used as a Covid ICU this time last year and was packed on Sunday after his op he was the only one in the ward. The children’s ward he was on for 4. days after the op was busy, they were having to operate at 70% of capacity due to Covid restrictions. 

The cynic in me suspects they are desperate for hospitalisation stats to go up in next few days to justify the delay. Currently around 1000, peak was nearly 40,000 so a whopping 2.5% of the peak. It was always about NHS coping. Now they keep referring to ‘hard to reach communities’ ie Asian. And they can’t mention delta variant without ensuring we know it is ‘highly transmissible’. 

[RedArmy]

Just a few more months. 

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Just a few more months. 

And after that we'll be told that it won't be safe until everyone has had two jabs, so just a couple more months.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

And after that we'll be told that it won't be safe until everyone has had two jabs, so just a couple more months.

Then the vaccine first delivered will start to wear off, a few more months while they are revaccinated 

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

And after that we'll be told that it won't be safe until everyone has had two jabs, so just a couple more months.

We won’t be safe until almost everyone has had two jabs. This has always been the case and it has never been claimed otherwise by anyone of any medical standing. Just over half the adult population has been fully vaccinated, this means we should be able to keep schools, shops, restaurants etc. Open, which we couldn’t during previous outbreaks.

 

But hey, let’s all get upset because cancer patients are going to take priority over music festivals for four more weeks. It’s the government trying to control us and definitely not the fault of thick tw*t, anti-vaxxers who ignore all public health protocols and refuse to get vaccinated but still expect treatment when they turn up at A&E gasping for oxygen.

[Weston Super Saint]

17 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We won’t be safe until almost everyone has had two jabs. This has always been the case and it has never been claimed otherwise by anyone of any medical standing. Just over half the adult population has been fully vaccinated, this means we should be able to keep schools, shops, restaurants etc. Open, which we couldn’t during previous outbreaks.

I've previously stated that infections will continue until that point.

The point regarding lockdowns was that they were only put in place to protect the NHS from collapsing. We've reached the point where ALL vulnerable people who are likely to overwhelm it are now vaccinated.

There could be a million infections a day but if that doesn't result in hospitalisations there is no need for a lockdown...

[whelk]

20 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We won’t be safe until almost everyone has had two jabs. This has always been the case and it has never been claimed otherwise by anyone of any medical standing. Just over half the adult population has been fully vaccinated, this means we should be able to keep schools, shops, restaurants etc. Open, which we couldn’t during previous outbreaks.

 

But hey, let’s all get upset because cancer patients are going to take priority over music festivals for four more weeks. It’s the government trying to control us and definitely not the fault of thick tw*t, anti-vaxxers who ignore all public health protocols and refuse to get vaccinated but still expect treatment when they turn up at A&E gasping for oxygen.

It isnt cancer patients over festivals but enjoy your moral high ground

Edited 12 June, 2021 by whelk

[RedArmy]

25 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We won’t be safe until almost everyone has had two jabs. This has always been the case and it has never been claimed otherwise by anyone of any medical standing. Just over half the adult population has been fully vaccinated, this means we should be able to keep schools, shops, restaurants etc. Open, which we couldn’t during previous outbreaks.

 

But hey, let’s all get upset because cancer patients are going to take priority over music festivals for four more weeks. It’s the government trying to control us and definitely not the fault of thick tw*t, anti-vaxxers who ignore all public health protocols and refuse to get vaccinated but still expect treatment when they turn up at A&E gasping for oxygen.

It’s been put out there in the past by SAGE that 25,000 could be the number of yearly covid deaths we have to live with going forwards. 
As always they have moved the goalposts again because of the “we must save everyone” nutters like you. 

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

It isnt cancer patients over festivals but enjoy your moral high ground

It basically is. There are tens of thousands of outpatients who’ve had treatments delayed repeatedly by the NHS being packed to capacity with Covid patients. We can’t afford to do that again, or get any where close to the 40,000 we had in January.

 

It’s nothing to do with moral high ground, it’s about not sarcastically pretending to be surprised by something we were told right from day one. We’ve always known that these vaccines needed two jabs and that everyone who was able would need to get one for the country to be safe.

[RedArmy]

 

 

For once in her life she is spot on. Boris has lost the plot.